EDITOR’S NOTE: This article is part of a series that is sponsored by WebRecon. WebRecon identifies serial plaintiffs lurking in your database BEFORE you contact them and expose yourself to a likely lawsuit. Protect your company from as many as one in three new consumer lawsuits by scrubbing your consumers through WebRecon first. Want to learn more? Call (855) WEB-RECON or email admin@webrecon.net today! Thanks to WebRecon for sponsoring this series.
DISCLAIMER: This article is based on a complaint. The defendant has not responded to the complaint to present its side of the case. The claims mentioned are accusations and should be considered as such until and unless proven otherwise.
A collection law firm is facing a Fair Debt Collection Practices Act lawsuit for allegedly garnishing the plaintiff’s wages without a court order to do so and then continuing to garnish the plaintiff’s wages after making assurances that it would stop. The firm did eventually return most of the funds that were garnished after it had made the assurances that it would stop, but has not attempted to contact the plaintiff to rectify the situation.
The Background: The plaintiff took out a loan to buy a car, which was totaled in an accident, leaving a deficiency balance. The defendant, on behalf of the lender, sued the plaintiff to recover the balance. The plaintiff entered into a consent judgment to repay the debt and made payments on the debt for two years until she believed the debt had been repaid.
- A year later, the defendant began garnishing the plaintiff’s wages because the plaintiff had failed to account for the interest that was accruing on the debt.
- But the judge in the collection lawsuit case learned the defendant had not filed the proper paperwork and the court had not given the defendant permission to garnish the plaintiff’s wages.
- The plaintiff and the defendant came to an agreement that what had been garnished — $854.87 — would cover the $1,018.12 that was owed.
- But eight months later, the defendant began garnishing the plaintiff’s wages again. This time, it took $620.28 from her checks in the weeks leading up to Christmas.
- After some back and forth between the plaintiff, the creditor, and the defendant, a reimbursement was added to the plaintiff’s paycheck in January for $538.83, leaving $81.45 still unaccounted for.
The Claim: The plaintiff filed suit, accusing the defendant of violating sections 1692e, 1692e(2)(A), 1692e(5), 1692e(10), 1692f, and 1692f(1) of the FDCPA.
